Circling Destruction Question

[Shodan]

While working out with a friend from a different line (she is Tatum line, I am Planas line) on Circling Destruction the other night, we noticed a difference in the first move. I was taught to do an inward/outward parry combo (to the punching arm) continuing into the mid-section shot and she thought an inward block was more effective.

I was thinking about the purpose of a parry vs. the purpose of a block. Seems to me like a block in this instance would mess up my borrowed force from the person- re-directing their arm (and stopping some of the force) vs. with the parries where I can still use their force against them.

What were you taught and what do you think about all this? Thanks!!

 

[kenpoworks]

(she is Tatum line, I am Planas line)....?....?

 

[Ceicei]

(she is Tatum line, I am Planas line)....?....?

Shodan is talking about instructor lineage. Her friend studies the techniques as taught by Larry Tatum. Shodan learned hers as taught by Huk Planas.

Her question was about the difference between the two ways taught and to find out the reasoning behind the difference. I wish I could answer her questions, but I haven't been able to see how they both do it to analyze the how. Maybe a videoclip might help?

I do the "double parry" but haven't done it as blocks. I do see some others from other studios do it as blocks. I haven't got to the point of wondering why as it appears to be more of a stylistic difference. I think either way will work.

EDIT: When my wrist gets better, I'll have to try out both ways. Perhaps there is an advantage to be found with each.
- Ceicei

 

[Shodan]

Thanks for the clarification CeiCei and sorry for the confusion kenpoworks!! Yeah- I have tried it both ways now and it just seems if I throw the inward block in there instead of the parry, it disrupts my use of borrowed force and makes the tech. more choppy. It's not a huge deal, I just wondered what others thought about it. Thanks again!

 

[Doc]

Consider that no attack is singular in nature. More than likely there is a second right cross looming. I was always taught bt Ed Parker to always cancel width, therefore I teach an inward block to cancel an anticipated follow up right punch.

Commercial Kenpo loves parries because they're fast and relatively easy to perform. However if you practice the technique with the attacker predetermined to throw two punches at you, you may change your mind about the parries. Sames goes for Reversing Mace.

And that's the Chapél Line from Ed Parker.

 

[JamesB]

Consider that no attack is singular in nature. More than likely there is a second right cross looming. I was always taught bt Ed Parker to always cancel width, therefore I teach an inward block to cancel an anticipated follow up right punch.

Commercial Kenpo loves parries because they're fast and relatively easy to perform. However if you practice the technique with the attacker predetermined to throw two punches at you, you may change your mind about the parries. Sames goes for Reversing Mace.

And that's the Chapél Line from Ed Parker.

interesting. this topic is going on at kenpotalk as well, I posted there that whilst I thought the inward-block would be effective defence, it would cancel the attacker's width and also his height, making the subsequent strikes in this technique difficult to reach - in particular the step-up-cicle into right forward bow with the left heel-palm to jaw. I always thought this technique was a 'slip up the outside' with parries because of this.

So I'm guessing that either you are doing this technique a little different, or much more likely I'm missing something fairly crucial here.

thanks,
James

 

[MattJ]

Consider that no attack is singular in nature. More than likely there is a second right cross looming. I was always taught bt Ed Parker to always cancel width, therefore I teach an inward block to cancel an anticipated follow up right punch.

Commercial Kenpo loves parries because they're fast and relatively easy to perform. However if you practice the technique with the attacker predetermined to throw two punches at you, you may change your mind about the parries. Sames goes for Reversing Mace.

And that's the Chapél Line from Ed Parker.

Wow Doc! Challenging all my old AKK beliefs!

I totally agree with you about cancelling width, very important. You seem to be hinting that parries can not cancel width or perhaps not as effectively? Wouldn't you want the extra control afforded by the parry in managing the opponent's height and depth zones as well as width? Blocks seem to me to be more limited to just controlling width. (assuming the inward block block)

And don't people typically lose contact with the opponent (therefore control) faster using blocks?

I also found your comment about parries being easier to perform somewhat not to my experience. Blocks have been much easier to teach and do for most beginner students that I have seen. If they were easier, wouldn't they be taught before blocks in the syllabus?

Sorry for all the questions, but there's only one way to learn, right?

 

[Shodan]

Consider that no attack is singular in nature. More than likely there is a second right cross looming. I was always taught bt Ed Parker to always cancel width, therefore I teach an inward block to cancel an anticipated follow up right punch.

Commercial Kenpo loves parries because they're fast and relatively easy to perform. However if you practice the technique with the attacker predetermined to throw two punches at you, you may change your mind about the parries. Sames goes for Reversing Mace.

And that's the Chapél Line from Ed Parker.

Thank you for your thoughts here Sir. I will play with it (and Reversing Mace) more with the two punch intent and see what I can learn!! If I had to choose, I'd rather give up some borrowed force and NOT get clocked with a second punch!! Let me play with it......

 

[kenpoworks]

Hey Doc,
To follow through with your assumption of a second punch and because you used the term "Right Cross".
When I teach this technique I teach it by the book as I do with all my techniques (please dont get into the which book thing its nearly as pointless as the lineage thing), but I soon encourage the students to practice against a left jab from an orthodox stance and then like you add on the right cross, opens things up nicely for the student on the analytical front and Shodan your'e dead right about moving the target, because if you practice the technique from a left jab you may find that you get "clocked" by the first punch and wind up "wearing" the second punch. Good to see that you are analysing all of your movements as for giving up borrowed force you may find that you actually enhance it by exploring the value of the slip for this as well as other punching combos.
Rich
ps how are things with you me ole china

 

[Doc]

Wow Doc! Challenging all my old AKK beliefs!

I totally agree with you about cancelling width, very important. You seem to be hinting that parries can not cancel width or perhaps not as effectively? Wouldn't you want the extra control afforded by the parry in managing the opponent's height and depth zones as well as width?

Parries in the martial art, (any martial art) were never designed to cancel width. Parries RE-DIRECT an attackers energy, not control it.

Blocks seem to me to be more limited to just controlling width. (assuming the inward block block). And don't people typically lose contact with the opponent (therefore control) faster using blocks?

Then you have not been taught correctly. This is not unusual. I've rarely seen correct blocking because the basics of kenpo-karate all come from many different styles and teachers, and not Ed Parker. He blocked much differently from what you see in the art. Nevertheless, if the blocking is just decent and applied correctly, it will do the job. Unfortunately kenpo-karate students are obsessed with speed over effectiveness. (Mr. Parker's words and I agree) Mr. Parker also said, "Speed kills - your technique." Yet people in an effort to emulate him concentrate on speed. What does it matter if you are slow if your attacker cannot hit you, and you can hit him? A properly executed block can cancel everything. A block IS designed to control, a parry is designed to re-direct. A block can control height, width, and depth simultaneously depending upon application.

I also found your comment about parries being easier to perform somewhat not to my experience. Blocks have been much easier to teach and do for most beginner students that I have seen. If they were easier, wouldn't they be taught before blocks in the syllabus?

Parries are easier than properly taught blocks. Most blocking in kenpo karate is virtually dysfunctional, being obsessed with speed and linear "Point of Origin" execution.

Sorry for all the questions, but there's only one way to learn, right?

Don't be sorry sir, and ask the same questions of your teachers.

 

[Doc]

interesting. this topic is going on at kenpotalk as well, I posted there that whilst I thought the inward-block would be effective defence, it would cancel the attacker's width and also his height, making the subsequent strikes in this technique difficult to reach - in particular the step-up-cicle into right forward bow with the left heel-palm to jaw. I always thought this technique was a 'slip up the outside' with parries because of this.

So I'm guessing that either you are doing this technique a little different, or much more likely I'm missing something fairly crucial here.

thanks,
James

It actually makes the technique easier when done the way I teach it. The assumption is the attacker is realistically throwing two (2) punches. If you don't Survive the Initial Assault, how can you move on? Even a semi-experienced guy when you parry his left straight punch/jab, will drag his left foot back toward 12, pivot, and cross with his right. If he's punching really hard James and you parry, he'll take another step with his right, drag his left toward 10:30 or so, and throw the right and you still can't perform the technique. A properly executed inward block will control everything, and prevent the above thus allowing you to move on to the next portion of the counter. Check it out in a model experiment. This technique is nothing but Reversing Mace (as I teach it) with a different conclusion.

 

[Doc]

Hey Doc,
how are things with you me ole china

Kicking, (but not high)
Floppin', (but can't fly)
Can't kill anything, (and nothing will die)
In other words, better than some, and not as good as others sir.

 

[Doc]

interesting. this topic is going on at kenpotalk as well, I posted there that whilst I thought the inward-block would be effective defence, it would cancel the attacker's width and also his height, making the subsequent strikes in this technique difficult to reach - in particular the step-up-cicle into right forward bow with the left heel-palm to jaw. I always thought this technique was a 'slip up the outside' with parries because of this.

So I'm guessing that either you are doing this technique a little different, or much more likely I'm missing something fairly crucial here.

thanks,
James

Once I teach you Reversing Mace, you'll understand. Now go back to KenpoTalk, and tell them I sent you.

 

[JamesB]

It actually makes the technique easier when done the way I teach it. The assumption is the attacker is realistically throwing two (2) punches. If you don't Survive the Initial Assault, how can you move on? Even a semi-experienced guy when you parry his left straight punch/jab, will drag his left foot back toward 12, pivot, and cross with his right. If he's punching really hard James and you parry, he'll take another step with his right, drag his left toward 10:30 or so, and throw the right and you still can't perform the technique. A properly executed inward block will control everything, and prevent the above thus allowing you to move on to the next portion of the counter. Check it out in a model experiment. This technique is nothing but Reversing Mace (as I teach it) with a different conclusion.

Once I teach you Reversing Mace, you'll understand. Now go back to KenpoTalk, and tell them I sent you.

makes perfect sense as always, thanks guess I was assuming that the second punch wouldn't be coming, bad assumption to make though

 

[Doc]

makes perfect sense as always, thanks guess I was assuming that the second punch wouldn't be coming, bad assumption to make though

I teach James, (from the beginning) that no attack is singular in nature. There is always what he is doing, and what he's going to do next. If its a bear hug, what's he going to AFTER he grabs you. Supplex, body slam, etc? If it's a push, what's he going to do after the push. Push again, follow punch, etc? If It's a punch, what's he going to do next. Kick, another punch, grab, etc?

Therefore, once contact is made with an attacker, whatever you do must be designed to control/absorb his initial attack AND whatever he may do next. This why we do not have 'what if's.' The Default Technique is supposed to automatically take these things into consideration, so students don't have to spend time considering multiple possibilities and are free to react. This is why we place such a heavy emphasis on the SURVIVE THE INITIAL ASSAULT componant in our teaching. If you don't, everything else is completely moot. Unfortunately, even in our Coursebooks, this componant is not written because of the subtlety and complexity of the mechanisms. The Default technique is well defined, but these mechanisms are "TT." (Teacher taught only)

 

[jaybacca72]

the left punch is probably going to be a jab in reality and the parry would seem to be quicker to do considering the left jab will be fast. huk also teaches an arm break in the beginning part to negate the right cross coming. hey doc realistically wouldn't you think that the left is going to come and retract so you would follow the reatraction similar to the silat concepts for entering? and move straight to the palm control/up the circle and delete the backfist strike.
later
jay

 

[Doc]

the left punch is probably going to be a jab in reality and the parry would seem to be quicker to do considering the left jab will be fast. huk also teaches an arm break in the beginning part to negate the right cross coming. hey doc realistically wouldn't you think that the left is going to come and retract so you would follow the reatraction similar to the silat concepts for entering? and move straight to the palm control/up the circle and delete the backfist strike.
later
jay

No sir, not in my experience. I must disagree with that. A 'jab' attack is a different scenario akin to a situation where both parties are more 'prepared' for confrontation. usually announced in some way through word or action by the aggressor.

Default self-defense techniques are not designed for that scenario, and Parker never filled in that gap publicly, although there is some good information available. When a guy attacks you serepticiously, it is because he fully expects to be successful and therefore he is fully committed to the action. This is where your self defense techniques reside. 'jabs' are 'set up' moves in 'confrontational street sparring' which is completely different, and requires a different philosophy, training method, and mechanisms.

Yes a 'parry' will be quicker but there's that disease again. "Quicker" doesn't necessarily translate to effective or success. If you don't control his width on his first left hand, you probably will be hit with the second punch even if you do get the next move off. And if he is doing a jab, he's setting you up for the second punch anyway.

The idea of attempting a break on a 'jab' is also a bit suspect. I suggest you should be concentrating on not getting hit first, in terms of confrontation priorities. Huk is just telling where you might go one day. I always speak of basics or default teachniques. That is what you need to learn and do in the beginning to become effective now, and more effective later.

No, in that situation I would not follow the retracted arm. And our MSU school Silat Pendekar Guru Cliff Stewart, agrees with me.

 

[jaybacca72]

i like your response doc,but i guess it depends on your abilities personally what will be good for you whenthe time comes. meaning i saw professor presas do stuff that alot would not or could not be succesfull with but he could because he was remy. i imagine the same held true with Mr.Parker but in any case thanks for the thoughts a pleasure as always. as far as the way huk teahces it you do actually block establish your base do your inital strike then proceed with an arm break as an option,so times i like to play the devil's advocate just to get the responses iam looking for.
later
jay
always something to learn from doc,and the seniors so ask questions while you still can.

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

.....And that's the Chapél Line from Ed Parker.

yeah, but Doc's way doesn't count because it's SL-4 not EPAK (LOL, someone had to say it Doc ). Thanks Doc! Informative as always..

 

[kenpohack]

Consider that no attack is singular in nature. More than likely there is a second right cross looming. I was always taught bt Ed Parker to always cancel width, therefore I teach an inward block to cancel an anticipated follow up right punch.

Commercial Kenpo loves parries because they're fast and relatively easy to perform. However if you practice the technique with the attacker predetermined to throw two punches at you, you may change your mind about the parries. Sames goes for Reversing Mace.

And that's the Chapél Line from Ed Parker.

Considering that I'm just about to test for my green belt, I'm not necessarily an authority on green belt material since I've only been working it for about six months or so. However, if an opponent were to follow up with a right cross, the double parries would probably be fine because he's going to eat a hellacious left heel palm to the face if he continues his attack. Even if the parries and the back knuckle don't stop his attack, if you've done the technique correctly, you've stepped offline to so he is not likely to connect with a right because of range. I've done this technique against a bronze medalist olympic boxer and pulled it off. He did not have time to connect with a right without eating a heel palm to the face. In my humble opinion and tested by experience, an inward block is unnecessary and counterproductive to the flow of the technique.